Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:45, 27 February 2012

Archives Archive 1 (January 2005 to June 2005) Archive 2 (July 2005 to October 2005) Archive 3 (November 2005) Archive 4 (December 2005) Archive 5 (January 2006) Archive 6 (February 2006) Archive 7 (March 2006) Archive 8 (April 2006) Archive 9 (May 2006) Archive 10 (June 2006) Archive 11 (July/August 2006) Archive 12 (September 2006) Archive 13 (October 2006) Archive 14 (November 2006) Archive 15 (December 2006) Archive 16 (January 2007) Archive 17 (February 2007) Archive 18 (March 2007) Archive 19 (April 2007) Archive 20 (May 2007) Archive 21 (June 2007) Archive 22 (July 2007) Archive 23 (August 2007) Archive 24 (September/October 2007) Archive 25 (November/December 2007) Archive 26 (January, February and March 2008) Archive 27 (April to December 2008) Archive 28 (2009) Archive 29 (January to June 2010) Archive 30 (July to December 2010)) Archive 31 (2011))

Help with identifying Glacier National Park images?

They are over at Commons, at Category:Walter McClintock Lantern Slides. Many photographs appear to be from the Glacier National Park area. Someone familiar with the park could probably identify the mountains and lakes-- could you take a look? Djembayz (talk) 18:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Most of the mountains are, or from the Swan Range to the south...I can ID the peaks, add an appropriate Category to each image and perhaps make a note on the Category page about each peak.MONGO 19:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I looked the images over...the only ones I could ID were already tagged on the image itself.--MONGO 05:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort! Djembayz (talk) 02:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello MONGO! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Thanks

It was me who wrote the motion (and the long long long long section of a statement underneath) :) SirFozzie (talk) 02:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha...thanks very much...it needs to be written in stone. I don't know if that case is the place to do it aside from the motion and I don't think either admin needs to be dragged over the coals on this issue or used as examples, but perhaps you and other arbitrators can "coerce" the blocking policy. Also, my goal with Malleus wasn't to get him as a named party in that case...but I've been in his shoes, not knowing when to shut up, nor take a chill pill...and like him, I had a block reverted by a friend and though I didn't contest that then as it was less common than now, I still think blocks of merit should stand and that admins should do precisely as you've written to minimize future problems. Good work!--MONGO 02:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it would go better for you if you stopped trying to invent history, and stopped right now. Malleus Fatuorum 02:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I wish I could "invent" a motion as eloquent as what SirFozzie wrote--MONGO 02:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Invention indeed. Misplaced Pages's civility policy has more in common with Old Wild West lynchings than 21st-century jurisprudence. But I know the truth is an anathema to you, so I shall bother you no more here on your talk page. Malleus Fatuorum 02:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I already told you that you could say anything you wish to me here...the goal was to give you a place to vent without threat of retaliation on what you post HERE...other places, the gloves are off. I don't know that lynchings were as common in the wild west as the movies seem to indicate...I think dying by way of bison stampede was about as common as a lynching.--MONGO 03:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

OK EQ

There's now a modest article on Benedictine Hall (Shawnee, Oklahoma), mainly sourced to the NRHP nomination. Acroterion (talk) 19:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Cool beans! I'll check it out tonight.MONGO 19:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I looked it over on my Blackberry...looks just fine...thanx!MONGO 20:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Back from "retirement"

Hi MONGO! I decided to come back. Some things I still want to do here. Enjoyed the break immensely. Guess that's what I needed, a rest. See you around. BusterD (talk) 02:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Breaks are good...my editing is low as of late due to various non-Misplaced Pages related issues. Hope you find some interesting areas to contribute to again.--MONGO 03:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

And they say white guys can't dunk... BusterD (talk) 20:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for 2011 Oklahoma earthquake

On 16 November 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 2011 Oklahoma earthquake, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the 5.6 magnitude earthquake which struck the U.S. state of Oklahoma on November 5, 2011, was the most powerful recorded in state history? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2011 Oklahoma earthquake.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Panyd 16:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil

Hi, MONGO. I see no problem at all if you do some copy-edit to the article. I'm glad to see your will to help. However, I must warn you that Malleus Fatuorum won't change his opinion no matter how much you improve the article. His stance is based on personal feelings, not on a rational motive. Nonetheless, thank you very much. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 10:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I shall work on it as best I can starting Friday evening. In Malleus defense, he is an excellent copyeditor, whereby I'm not known for such...I'm mainly best at the research end and all of the featured articles I produced always had the help of others, especially in terms of copyediting. However, I'll do what I can and perhaps Malleus may be swayed.MONGO 12:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

That's ok. Any help is appreciated. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 13:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Lecen's opinion is contrary to the facts, not that that seems ever to have stopped him before, as the FAC of Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil quite clearly shows. Malleus Fatuorum 12:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Lecen, I have a number of things I will adjust to the article this weekend.--MONGO 12:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, MONGO. I never bothered her. It was she the one who appeared and made comments. If she is so busy, why she did it, then? Anyway, I'm going to wait for your improvements. I really appreaciate your help. --Lecen (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean it that way...I'll do what I can but my forte is research so maybe this will be a good exercise for me. Overall, the article is interesting and had you not written it, we may have had to wait some time yet to see it on en.wiki.--MONGO 02:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Bishonen said the she saw "other problems besides the prose". What are they? --Lecen (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on some of them now...and will do more over the next day or two. Chck my edit summaries as I tend to leave notes in that whenever I make substantive changes to unfamiliar articles.--MONGO 07:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Was she talking about unreliable sources? What exactly did she mean by "other problems besides the prose"? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Not so much unreliable as just not enough different sources I think. I'm heading out now to do so things, but will work on this more tonight. I'll post coments at the article talkpage after I do somre more copyediting..hang in there! I hope to make whatever adjustments I can by the 23rd as I won't be around much for the 4 days after that I think.--MONGO 20:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to be a pain in the ass but I must be sincere to you and tell you that I disagree if your last edit. First, because it's the kind of information that would make sense in the articles about Pedro I and the war between him and his brother. The focus in here should be Maria Amélia. Second, because neither Britan nor France aided him. The most they did was that once the war was practically finished (with Pedro I's victory) both nations sent a joint warning to Miguel I that they supported Pedro I. In toher words: they did absolutely nothing. They didn't send troops, arms, money or anything helpful. Not even moral support until the war was almost over. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Lecen, you're not being a pain at all...but lets resume article discussion at the article talkpage.--MONGO 03:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

First, Malleus Fatuorum called me a "dickhead" twice merely because I awarded another reviewer with a barnstar and not him. That's why he doesn't like me and that's why he opposed the article in the TFA candidates (and I had never met him before that!). Where I live people do not insult someone and this kind of behavior is not accepted as "normal". However, I noticed that he has many supporters who love this "Malleus Fatuorum's lifestyle". There is no excuse for being rude to other people. Even less with no good reason. I also noticed that he likes playing the victim type and is always crying out loud that he is harassed by "civility cops" and that no one supports him. That's a lie. There are more people bullying those "civility cops" and supporting him than the other way around. Second, if Bishonen doesn't think the article is realiable enough, well, then, she should point out waht is wrong instead of blindly accusing me. Empire of Brazil, Pedro Álvares Cabral, José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco, Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil, Honório Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná, Pedro II of Brazil and Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies all of these seven articles are FAs and all were written by me. Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil was recently promoted to FA and now it's just not good enough? What? Why? The article is being butchered beyond recognition merely to please Malleus Fatuorum who will never grant his support. Damn. Why should I be worried about pleasing him on the first place? Who is he? Somekind of God in here? I'm really sorry for being so frank, I'm not complaing about you at all, and you are helping me a lot, but the truth is that this is all a huge waiste of time. If people won't give their support because Malleus Fatuorum said "no" than we should simply change the entire FAC process and place Malleus Fatuorum as the sole reviewer since his word is law. Damn it. Said enough already. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have a staggering lack of insight into your own behaviour Lecen, while being excessively critical of the behaviour of others. But surely with a modicum of effort you can see that your continuing personal attacks against me are inconsistent with your repeated bleating about having been called a dickhead? Time for it to stop. The reason I opposed your TFAR is because the article is very poorly written, as was Afonso before I helped you with that. Simple as that. Got it? Malleus Fatuorum 16:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

What would be of me without you, ó greatest of the great ones! --Lecen (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The lesson you have to learn Lecen is that you do not have the command of English you believe yourself to have, as a cursory glance at any of your FAs demonstrates. I'm giving you fair notice that your personal attacks must stop. Malleus Fatuorum 16:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I never said I was exceptional when writing in English. On the contrary. What I do here is to write content. It is Astynax the one who makes the copy-edit. --Lecen (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Well..let's just not do this here...I'll have more to add later.MONGO 16:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

September 11 attacks

I don't know what you mean by "personal attacks" so spare me with that nonsense because it's getting old. There is no hierarchy here it doesn't matter how long you have been on Misplaced Pages. It has nothing to do with the "settings" every other page looks fine, the text in your version is below the infobox. You deleted referenced information on the height of the towers, the speed of the planes, the floors impacted, etc. you may not, but most people consider that pertinent information one would find in an encyclopedia article, "good articles" have information in them. You do not WP:OWN the page, there is no hierarchy here. 7mike5000 (talk) 12:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Part of the problem is your edits added the kind of details and links that were removed over the last few months to reduce over-linking and to more tightly focus the article. In any case, you've boldly edited, you've been reverted, and now it's time to take it to the article talk page. Tom Harrison 12:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

A number of editors, including Tom above, have been trying to reduce the article's universally acknowledged bloat over the past few months. This problem has been highlighted by a number of reviewers. The article still needs tightening, so please work with other editors to include what is needed while making the article as concise as possible. Acroterion (talk) 12:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Analyze this

Since you seem to be collecting evidence for a clique, analyze this. Geometry guy 22:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

That seems to be the normative behavior at that talkpage.--MONGO 02:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Well spotted. Robust disagreement is indeed normative amongst editors with honesty and integrity. Geometry guy 05:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Now try this. Geometry guy 05:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

That Truthkeeper88 is Neptun88? --DHeyward (talk) 01:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't that someone pushing 9/11 CT's?--MONGO 02:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It was a sock of Giovanni33. He often created SPAs to hide. He's banned. --DHeyward (talk) 19:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure...Gio was in southern California I think...--MONGO 02:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

But Neptun88 was a confirmed sock of Gio...--MONGO 02:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Meh......that's 2 and a half years ago.--MONGO 04:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

How sad. By trawling back through the archives you will also find many times when Malleus and I agreed. So what? Geometry guy 12:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I just looked at his two failed Rfa's which are linked on his userpage...its not unusual for similar thinkers to bond, but highly unusual for those that have animosity or divergent views to do so.MONGO 15:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I gave Malleus the benefit of the doubt at his RfA a couple of years ago. That doesn't mean I'm a supporter or defender now. Malleus and I have also disagreed many times. We are completely different, for example, in views on and approach to civility. The post I linked is but one example of "animosity or divergent views". One editor even took me to task for it on my user talk page.

My expression of sadness was at the way you seem to filter information, in black and white: my enemy's friend is my enemy. Thanks, though, for idea that Malleus and I are "similar thinkers" who have "bonded": it made me chuckle. Geometry guy 21:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Something for you to consider

Whatever you may think of me (and believe me, I don't really give a shit), I think Sandy is right that you are, or have become, too close to the subject matter to remain impartial when editing topics related to 9/11. I also think it would be best if the maintenance and improvement of that article were taken over by newer editors who haven't been involved in the protracted disputes that have been running for all these years. That would be the best case scenario as far as we, as neutral editors of an encyclopaedia, should be concerned. I will, however, tell you that I will take you or any other editor to WP:AE and request a topic ban if they act in any manner other than what would be expected of a neutral editor of an encyclopaedia—that includes calling other editors, even editors you don't like, bigots. I suggest you use AE if you believe that another editor is not acting in a manner that would be expected of a neutral editor of an encyclopaedia, but I really think it would be best if you step away from the area. I would add that I'm here not because I think Malleus' conduct is desirable, but because you seem to have the most invested in this emotionally and because if you step away, the chances are others will follow suit. Of course, you're free to completely disregard everything I just said and there's very little I can do about it, but I hope you will consider it, because it is offered in good faith. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell...Malleus and others commented in the article GAR that the article was biased...one example was that there was no mention of NORAD and the "failure of the worlds largest airforce to act"...I ackowledged that this was an omission and added a paragraph about it but the reliable references I found indicated that opposite was true, that the airforce DID respond but in a very NPOV manner added that there were serious communication break downs between various federal agencies. On the advice of Karanacs, I worked to cleanup prosen fix citation issues and get the article more MOS compliant. Malleus has made but a few edits to the article, some relatively minor ce's...the rest of his "contributions" have been nonspecific comments at the talkpage along the lines of "you reap what you sow", "rednecks", "draped in red white and blue", that the article is "sh-t", "crap"...his "contributions" are zero. Now, I have a couple questions for you...since you come here to offer "advice" to someone that is twice your age and has been on this website far longer than you...firstly, in such an article, who is "neutral"? I don't think you are, you don't seem to think I am, I know Malleus isn't...so who are these "neutral" editors? Secondly, what would be the outcome for me if I edited an article say about the IRA (I haven't looked at the article so I don't know if it is or isn't biased)..but let's say for the sake of argument that it had a "pro-British" viewpoint/POV and went to the article talkpage and told everyone there it was crap, it was biased, it stinks, it looks like a 5 year old wrote it and finished up with, "the only people satisfied with this article are British rednecks draped in their Union Jack"...do you think any welcome would be extended to me after that? Wouldn't most think such comments are bigoted? At the least, is that the manner an argument is "won", by making ethnocentric comments?MONGO 21:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

As noted below, I do not wish to defend Malleus's post, but one interesting feature was the phrase "wrapped in red, white and blue", which applies just as much to the Union Jack as it does to the Flag of the United States. It behoves all editors of Misplaced Pages to leave nationalism (and indeed all of our individual points of view) at the doorstep, and write the best possible articles we can for the entire English speaking world. Geometry guy 22:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I also found Malleus's comment unhelpful, and you will find a thread immediately above yours on his talk page with precisely the same link. However, I urge you to consider HJ Mitchell's comments carefully: don't respond in haste. I too have noticed some emotional involvement on your part, but I've also seen that you have the ability to step back and reflect, and provide valuable input. There is a real chance for progress on the 9/11 article now, which is something I hope all editors will welcome. Geometry guy 20:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please discuss the content, not the editors. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 22:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Your drama mongering isn't helpful-- this is a really stupid warning. Oh, are you going to block him next? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Concur. Geometry guy 22:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree and abide by whatever Kaldari suggests...and I retract my comment about Malleus being a bigot or bigoted.--MONGO 23:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see User:Gerardw/Notes on civility. I'd like to call your attention to the suggestion: "In the current context, in my opinion, any editor who repeatedly complains about Malleus or admins supporting or the like is just as disruptive to Misplaced Pages as any post he may make." Gerardw (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Then AN/I in your opinion is just a dramafest, likely to only increase drama? Should repeat problems be dealt with in a RFCU or sent directly to arbcom?--MONGO 00:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you and Kaldari discuss or plan the posts you have both made here and at other venues? If so, what was your purpose? Geometry guy 01:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

No we did not...I previously discussed with her the issues regarding NPA and CIVIL in general in a couple emails...she was reminding me to follow my pledge and I think (I'd have to check) that I told her that if was out of line that she should pull me back in line.--MONGO 01:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Why did you suddenly switch from an uncompromisingly robust defense of your position to a more conciliatory one after Kaldari's post? Geometry guy 02:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Because I made a mistake, I was trying to fight fire with fire. My AN/I complaint and comments elsewhere would have perhaps fixed the issue had I been less reactionary. Kaldari is a neutral admin in my opinion.--MONGO 02:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec)The point is it's premature to consider how to deal with a "problem" unless we agree it's a problem. And "Malleus" drama has already generated a 265 post, 16 days arbcom discussion , and in the end, the case was not accepted. I'm not unsympathetic to your reaction to the comment, but you saw the current consensus at the ANI post. My advice is if you really feel: 1) an editor has significantly the crossed the line, and 2) there's a reasonable chance the community will support you, do "one and done." Make one really good posting at ANI. Phrase it as neutrally and calmly as you can and include as many relevant diffs as you can. Watch the thread but avoid the tendency to reply to every comment, and especially counter claims/accusations from the other party. Answer any specific questions you get asked but otherwise let the community discussion go. Going onto an editor's talk page with anything less than a reasonably polite query or a fairly standard warning is unlikely to be productive. Gerardw (talk) 02:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, his name wasn't atop that case...it had a peripheral focus to him so there weren't any diffs there demonstrating the issues in detail as he wasn't a named party. However, your advice is excellent and I thank you for your time.--MONGO 02:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I also thank you for your time, and you give a lot of good advice. There are multiple explanations for what may have happened here: a conspiracy to expose double standards? a relationship in the making?...and many more mundane explanations inbetween. I came quite close to filing a report at ANI for other editors to consider, but did not, as I do not think the editing process has been significantly disrupted, and that is what really matters. Geometry guy 02:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding what exactly?--MONGO 02:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

GeometryGuy, consider this past history...that this led to this finding...and that was ONE DIFF.--MONGO 02:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks for apologizing for mistakes and continuing to engage in rational discourse. Geometry guy 03:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I've been around the 9/11 articles a long time...--MONGO 03:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Um, no, that one diff didn't lead to the Seabhacan finding (I edited around him on other articles, and he most certainly deserved the finding, and it was not based on that one diff). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

That was the only one cited but yes there were others...--MONGO 04:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Response to comment on Tom's talk page

Rather than fill up Tom's talk page with a response not entirely concerning improving the building 7 article I figured I will just leave my comments here.

My goal is to have articles focus on presenting the facts in a way that is objective and allows people to reach their own conclusions, rather than trying to push them towards one side or another. I am also of the opinion that a fact is something that can be plainly observed. Many things being stated as facts in the building 7 article were not actually observed by anyone, but simply things that experts concluded had occurred. Additionally their basis for such conclusions is at times flimsy, like their conclusion about thermite. I can think of all sorts of ways someone with high-level government clearance could sneak hundreds of pounds of dirt-like material into a 47-story tall skyscraper that housed a number of secretive government agencies. Sometimes I find debunkers suffer from a lack of imagination or they don't really think of how it would be done because they already reject the conspiracy theories. NIST may very well not suffer from that, but they couldn't exactly say "well, it is certainly not implausible that someone could have used thermite to demolish these columns" and expect to avoid the hell that would rain down on them from every other government institution.

Personally, I don't really think there is good reason to challenge the collapse from fire explanation, but I also recognize that this does not absolve anyone of making bad arguments or trying to assert something as fact that they cannot reasonably prove in any way. Hell, NIST just guessed at what caused the fires. It is a pretty solid guess, but there was also plenty of motive, means, and opportunity for a whole host of individuals to set fire to the offices of the SEC, which is where the most severe fires were located. Destroying evidence implicating your business or a business partner in a massive fraud is not exactly unimaginable and the too-big-to-fail logic also would make most guilty parties too-big-to-indict for doing it as well.

All of that is just my own random speculation so naturally it has no encyclopedic purpose in any article, let alone one that's about a building. To put it simply, if I was interested in promoting conspiracy theories in the building 7 article I wouldn't have been pushing for a change that removed everything about conspiracy theories save for NIST saying it found no evidence supporting them. My more open-minded consideration of conspiracy theories is not something that should be faulted against me. Just because I do not pretend to know where many ignorant men are sure does not mean I am not objective about the situation. What I think is really going on is that some editors want to use the building 7 article as a vehicle for debunking conspiracy theories and that, said editors, are letting the general quality of the article decline as a result.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your patient, calm and polite explanation here at my talkpage. I do not fault you in any way for your beliefs, nor will I try to convince you that you are wrong to have them, but will explain that these fringe beliefs, while perhaps not absolutely impossible, are so improbable that no credible engineers consider them even worth entertaining. World trade center 7 was only 350 feet from the foorprint of the 1362 foot north tower WTC1...had WTC 7 experienced a similar failure on it's own in another time and place, then other explanations may have been worth investigating.--MONGO 04:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I did not say anything about what I believe, only that I keep my mind open. However, I think you are not really acknowledging the politics of the situation. Even if those credible engineers had doubts they would be less eager to share them simply because of the political nature of expressing such doubts. So much as saying they are not sold on the concept would likely be a career ender, regardless of what reasons they gave. They would likely be black-listed in their field, pilloried in the press, and harassed by the community. Academics are human as well and you cannot just presume they would disseminate information from their brain like some sort of emotionless machine. Not to mention some will not consider such a theory because the underlying presumption that the government lied and concealed the true actors behind such a horrific event is too extreme for them to consider. The problem here seems to be the problem that often happens when talking about conspiracy theories, you are presuming it is merely a scientific question. Even when there is not a great deal of politics involved a theory that is considered fringe is less likely in general to be tolerated by the scientific community at large. Getting any study seriously challenging the mainstream view to be accepted is incredibly difficult even without the serious political ramifications.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

You're allowed to be as open minded as you want, but since no reliable sources support these fringe beliefs, they don't belong in an article dedicated to providing a factual, reliable and citable account of the events that virtually every expert supports. The fringe beliefs you mention are discussed extensively and given way more than their due weight for consideration, but this is done in articles that directly examine those beliefs, not in articles that don't.--MONGO 03:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE does not in any way say every belief not in the mainstream should be treated like claims the Earth is flat. Every theory and belief has its own level of merit. Circumstances change for each claim and each article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 08:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I am curious, when you say these beliefs are given way more than their due weight in the articles that are actually about these beliefs what exactly do you mean?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

That they are given way more than their due weight.MONGOn~

Are you saying the articles on such fringe beliefs are worded in a way that gives them undue weight?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

In some cases the articles are written in a manner that gives a particular theory or group too much of an appearance of being mainstream...when more should be done to make sure the audience knows they are fringe. I also think most of the 9/11 CT related articles could be condensed and merged together as many do not deserve a stand-alone article.MONGO 19:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

While not knowing what specifically you are referring to I can say I respect the idea of what you are saying. However, I should also note that, as I said, not all beliefs are created equal. I think there is some importance to distinguishing the claims of the Loose Change/Zeitgeist crowd from those who alleged foreign government involvement or those who alleged that the U.S. government let it happen on purpose. Even more important is to distinguish allegations of a conspiracy from calls for a new investigation that is more independent. I would not support lumping these all together as though they share equal credibility.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

And if the 2nd (and third) investigations turn up the same information on the facts we have now, then what?--MONGO 04:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I believe if a truly independent investigation is given the ability to seriously probe the government's records it will uncover more information and that some of said information will be damaging to at least some aspects of the official explanation. That is what happened with the HSCA. At any rate, it is at this point an irrelevant question. Until there is such an investigation we cannot really know what it would uncover. It certainly does not have any bearing on whether calls for a new investigation should be regarded as equivalent with claims of controlled demolition.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Re:

Yeah, I figured it was a lesser-of-two-evils type deal. These nuts won't go away, and when they do, new ones come in. I'm holding out that maybe someone logical may come in and flip the numbers a bit, but I'm not optimistic. Toa Nidhiki05 17:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Well...we've been down this road before...they are never satisfied with a link, then we add a sentence and that isn't enough as they want MORE...but for the record, I have gotten over a hundred emails over the years thanking me for keeping that stuff out of the article...they mostly don't edit it because it is too sensitive a subject for them...and luckily, Misplaced Pages itself generally has a low pain threshold for anyone constantly sniping about the need to include more fringe info in articles...lest we end up looking like the website is run by wackos.MONGO 17:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, enough is never enough for those people. If this passes, I fear it will just advance into more and more CT-related stuff. Toa Nidhiki05 20:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I am convinced it will be now a foothold...that has always been the plan that others, who think we weren't being comprehensive enough, don't understand. As the event fades further back in history, the fables surrounding it dim the truths, as they're more sensational and mesmerizing...--MONGO 04:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what happens... Its why we have Holocaust deniers and Moon landing conspiracy theorists. When something so horrible or spectacular happens, some people just can't believe it was real. Toa Nidhiki05 14:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Re Wyoming

Mongo, done. Hope all is well in your next of the woods. Cold and snowy here. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Muy bueno...I miss Montana, more every day...all is well here but like Gene Hackman said in the movie Unforgiven (film)...I thought I was dead too...but it was just that I was in Nebraska....MONGO 18:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I actually had to do the same for Montana as I think the protect on Wyoming drove them north. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I saw that...well, it happens from time to time...most of the last few weeks of edits to the Wyoming article looked like copy/pastes from other websites or Misplaced Pages articles themselves and the reverts of those edits...and not a lot of folks watchlist Wyoming I don't think since the reverts are slow...I did the last one there on my blackberry which is an arduous task due to page loading issues, etc. If an IP shows up in the next couple of weeks and wants to add something useful, they can always comment on the article talkpage. On a side not...I'm surprised so many alpine lakes in Grand Teton NP aren't named (not on topos or in GNIS)...I could see that in a less important area, but note in a National Park. For comparison, Glacier NP has a lot more lakes and virtually every one is named.--MONGO 16:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Bibliography of Wyoming history

Mongo - Just threw this together this morning. Lots more to add, but you are welcome to bring along your expertise.--Mike Cline (talk) 19:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Will check that out tonight, thanks.MONGO 15:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Looked this over and its fine...I'll add some to it this coming weekend.MONGO 17:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 03:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	you do good Puffin 16:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a kind gesture...only I am not an administrator...best wishes to you nevertheless.MONGO 16:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

You are an administrator I saw you block someone a few years ago. Also it says succesfuL here. Puffin 22:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Puffin 22:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I was desysopped by the Arbitration Committee in December 2006...so it's been 5 years since I was an administrator...you may have me confused with someone else.--MONGO 02:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

So it should be called: "The 'oughta be' adminstrator barnstar". Hey, come over the RfA and watch me kick the hornets' nest a few more times. I didn't want to let you guys down. BusterD (talk) 03:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm reading it...its disappointing...especially reading how my involvement may have cost you support. I didn't think the community thought so badly of me....hence, there is no way I'd put myself up at Rfa...it would be a massive waste of everyone's time and I don't have any use for the tools anyway...but I continue to cheer you on and hope others will look beyond me and concentrate on your maturity and ability to learn from the situation. IF the effort fails, another try in a few months will surely pass....but I encourage you to stick it out as long as your stomach allows it.--MONGO 03:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I have a strong stomach, brother. Hey, this ain't over. We're not even 24 hours in yet. The bleeding has stopped and one user even switched a !vote to support. Another opposer docked his assertion. A third opposer just gave you a barnstar. One support user was happy I once gave Jclemens serious guff in an AfD. Frankly he deserved it, and I LIKE Jclemens. Who'd ever thought of fighting back against people who have simply been mislead and might have gotten it wrong? I think six more days will tell. Regardless, most editors have sounded supportive, even if not just now. Thanks for giving me the chance to stand up for myself. It's thrilling. BusterD (talk) 03:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The issue of some of your older articles lacking inline cites was raised...I commented on the talkpage about it as I don't see that as a justifiable reason to oppose (though that editor did have a number of other issues)...anyway, I list the articles I started on my userpage not as a way to boast but as a way to keep track of things as I do plan, as I can find time, to revisit those older articles and clean them up...I think listing your areas of focus, article starts and other things like DYK's and what not on your userpage would benefit you.--MONGO 03:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Amphitheater Lake, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Surprise Lake (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

9/11 cultural impact discussion

Would you please provide your opinion any of the proposals given on the 9/11 article talk page?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Re:Best wishes

Wow, thanks. It's refreshing to have someone compliment me on my maturity rather than point out my age.

Anyway, keep up what you do - we need level-headed editors. :) Toa Nidhiki05 02:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure...if indeed your age is what you claim, I am the one that may need lessons from you in maturity for I seem to lack it at times when I most need it. Best wishes!--MONGO 03:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects

The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Fan mail

As you said, wow. "Amanda", the NYU student who "trying to understand the ins and outs of Wiki to further her knowledge of the online encyclopedia", certainly has a deep voice, no? It added a certain entertainment value to my otherwise mundane Monday morning. Antandrus (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, lessons learned the hard way...besides the threats to you and others which sounded like you were all headed to some waterboarding experiences at GITMO, I was particularily amused by how she changes all your delete votes to keep at the Afd! I don't think I've ever seen that before...MONGO 19:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee RfC

I have started one at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 3. If you would like to add yourself as a certifying party and perhaps make a statement, it would be appreciated. Also, if you would like to change the formatting a bit, please feel free. This is my first RfC creation and this also isn't a common type of RfC, so I used a generalized format. Silverseren 23:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Mountain ranges in Idaho

Mongo, I'll put it up this afternoon if you promise to fix all the links to DAB pages so the bots don't attack me. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that a pain...the BOTS are taking over! While some useful, others hardly give a feller the time to make an adjusting edit...I will surely help you on this, but the speed and determination of these BOT-zoids will make it tough to guarantee that they won't show up en masse at your talkpage with warnings of impending doom.--MONGO 18:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Its done at List of mountain ranges in Idaho --Mike Cline (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah oh...too fast...I am just now heading out...won't be much help until 6pm CST...oops.--MONGO 19:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Missouri River

....is at FAC. I'm ok on the prose and formatting but am not hugely familiar with it, so might benefit from review by a local.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure...will take a look...I live 12 miles from the river, but spend more time near the Platte River which flows into it. Nice to hear from you.--MONGO 01:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Tom harrison

Concerning what you said to Mkat, when an editor essentially starts Godwinning an article in such a blatant manner I think admins tend to give out lengthy sanctions. An ARBPIA case recently was filed on an editor who kept trying to insert the Nazi flag into the belligerents section of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War article alongside the Arab states and that editor also got indeffed. As to your comment about my history with him, I didn't file the request out of any hostility to Tom. Obviously he was intent on inserting woefully inappropriate statements into prominent parts of the article that essentially smeared all adherents of 9/11 conspiracy theories as antisemitic even after I asked him to stop. Something that far off the reservation should generally not be overlooked, in my opinion, and I have overlooked a lot.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

What is it that is "far off the reservation" in your opinion...perhaps I am overlooking something.--MONGO 23:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The basic problem with Tom's edits 2, 3 and 4 is that it looks like he was purposely putting stuff into the article to make CT look bad, as opposed to simply writing about it neutrally.

Also, while I think the For Dummies books meet Misplaced Pages's standards for reliability, it doesn't look good. It's a shame, too, because there are stronger sources as I pointed out at the talk page of AE.

But indefinite banning of a productive editor for a first time offense is beyond the pale. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The For Dummies series of books are generally well reviewed and authoritative...so if the admins in this matter had been doing a decent job they may have considered that The Devils Advocate, the filer of this request for arbcom enforcement, had himself been topic banned in this area for 30 days not too long ago and has had 2 blocks placed against him also due to this topic area...and Tom harrison commented at the arbcom enforcement request against The Devils Advocate back in November...Tom has been editing for 8 years, never been blocked or topic banned and the admins in this case seem to have no idea what a benefit it has been to have Tom harrison work in this difficult topic area and yet always remain cool, always use reliable sources and be a tremendous benefit to Misplaced Pages...his "reward" for doing such a fine job is to be told to go away it seems...I am totally disgusted...these admins have done no justice here.--MONGO 00:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, many the CT's regarding 9/11 DO HAVE a strong anti-Jewish undertones...the entire CT that "no Jews died on 9/11" was indeed hate mongering from anti-Jewish sources...just to be clear, I am not Jewish, nor is Tom Harrison I don't think.--MONGO 00:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I know, and I pointed that out at AE talk. AQFK (talk) 01:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I've only been consulting the banning admin...I haven't yet asked why the one admin who gave a 30 day topic ban to TDA but supported an indefinite ban on Tom Harrison...I've worked with Tom harrison a long time on this website and I know he is meek and he isn't ever going to want this to be some drama-bomb for him...you have no idea what level of harassment he has sidestepped in his efforts to keep the CT's at bay...this injustice is not going to stand.--MONGO 01:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

For example, adding in the editorial voice the claim that 9/11 conspiracy theories "in fact" articulate antisemitic themes while "ostensibly" blaming others was plainly in appropriate. Putting it in the lede of the article was even more inappropriate. The things Tom was inserting were all in the editorial voice, all placed high up in the article, and all highly inflammatory. Don't you think saying 9/11 conspiracy theories and all other conspiracy theories have their origin in "hatred and fear of Jews" is inflammatory?

Now, as to the fact that he has been involved for a long time, I think that would have worked well had he not made insertions like that three times in a row despite the obviously objectionable nature of the edits. Also, Tom probably did himself no favors with the kind of responses he left on the AE case. Seems to me this is symptomatic of the issues with any article on conspiracy theories. People who plainly express their disdain for conspiracy theories too often use WP:V as a way to ignore basically every other policy at times plainly running afoul of common sense. It is also taken too readily that any editor that tries to have articles be less absolute about describing the conspiracy theories must agree with them and therefore must be editing tendentiously. Unfortunately, this is the result of a systemic bias that goes well beyond Misplaced Pages.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It was a momentary lapse in reason. Apart from this one incident, has Tom H seemed reasonable to you? Do you honestly think he deserves an indefinite topic ban? AQFK (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't even think I would say that...the diffs provided by TDA didn't = indefinite ban...if there was an edit war going on, why not protect the page...instead, some overzealous admins wanted to show their "power" by once again overreacting.--MONGO 02:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Really, I don't like it when anyone is given an indef, but sometimes people dig their own graves and there is not much to do about it. While an editor with a long editing history and clean block log gets a lot more consideration and good will there are plenty of things they can do to lose it all. Had Tom made one edit like that, I think the admins might have given him some slack, but three edits like that obviously exhausted his good will. Take a step back and imagine if it was the other way around like some article on skeptics getting repeated edits essentially claiming skeptics are all religion-hating Stalinists. Even if the editor was also otherwise productive I imagine you would be less sympathetic to them. Sometimes admins really do overstep, but I think you will have a hard time convincing anyone that this was one of those times. I am sure if Tom goes on making good contributions elsewhere there will be some positive consideration of a future appeal provided he is apologetic about those actions.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't post here again...ever.MONGO 12:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Walmarting article 6 years later...

Maybe there was some way to email you, but I didn't figure it out, so I am ccing you on your talk page:

Forwarded message ----------

From: Beth Wellington <communitypoweredreporting@gmail.com> Date: Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 2:12 PM Subject: Why reliable new editors/ female editors may be discouraged To: Fabrice Florin <fflorin@wikimedia.org> Cc: Alan Aycock <aycock@uwm.edu>, John Aycock <aycock@ucalgary.ca>

Fabrice,

Since, in your new position, you are tasked w. encouraging new editors, I thought this might be of interest...

In 2005, I spent lot of time editing the article "Walmarting" to prevent it from being deleted as I knew that it was an academic neologism from writing about Wal-mart for the New River Free Press.

Today, scanning down my talk page, I happened to notice an old entry from Alan Aycock. an antropologist at the University of Wisconsin under the user name Aaycock. http://www4.uwm.edu/letsci/anthropology/faculty/aycock.cfm

His name showed in red, which I knew it hadn't at the time he wrote me: Beth, I'm the Anthropology professor referred to in the links for this entry. I've attempted to fill out the definition of Walmarting a little based on my own reading of the (amazingly substantial) literature. I've striven for a NPOV, though I'm not entirely satisfied on this score and would welcome further interventions! best, Alan Aycock (aycock@uwm.edu) Note: The preceeding unsigned comment was added by--Aacock 07:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It turned out his user name had been deleted in 2008 by MZMcBride, whomever that may be, s/he has no bio on the user page, but from the talk page appears to be very active. Here's what I left at that user's page:

Walmarting article. Not sure why you deleted this user as he is an anthropologist, Alan Aycock, Ph.D. who coined the term and indicated on my talk page back in 2006 that he had edited my work to clarify the concept when the article was in danger of deletion. (cur | prev) 09:49, 30 April 2006‎ Aaycock (talk | contribs)‎ (5,725 bytes) (→Background) (undo) (cur | prev) 07:54, 30 April 2006‎ Aaycock (talk | contribs)‎ (5,692 bytes) (→Background) (undo) (cur | prev) 07:40, 30 April 2006‎ Aaycock (talk | contribs)‎ (5,639 bytes) (→Background) (undo)

He even wrote about the experience of editing in this article: http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/EJ854850.pdf

In the article, you will see that he even encouraged his students. Also in that article, hs co-author John Aycock notes:

Thanks to one Misplaced Pages entry, I was sent on a wild goose chase while preparing my lecture for a computer science class. And after all this...,1588 still persists in the Misplaced Pages universe – the digging I’ve done constitutes original research, which is prohibited content according to Misplaced Pages policy (Misplaced Pages, c). Ironically, if Aycock were to pubish the results of his digging in an article on the topic, rather than about Misplaced Pages and I were to cite them, they wouldn't be "original research."

BTW, User MONGO was very helpful and pleasant in dealing w. me on the article. And yet for some reason he lost his sysop privileges and was unable to get them reinstated.

Forgot to name stamp: --Beth Wellington (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

B.

At left under toolbox there is a link "email this user"...but you have to have your email enabled as well. It's been a loooong time, but nice to hear to hear from you. Walmarting is still an article, User:Aacock was an account deleted under category for speedy deletion, nonexistent user ...--MONGO 07:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Parking spot for reference

Broken Falls

Neat!

Thanks, I didn't even know there was a Cowstar! It will help keep me from having a cow. Jayjg 20:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, that one is my own invention!--MONGO 22:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Re:

More like he needs anyone who questions the result of the case banned; God-forbid we do so, because questioning an admin will cause something mind-bogglingly terrible to happen! All this really does it give more legitimacy to the argument that he is seeking retaliatory blocks/bans against anyone who has done something he doesn't like. Toa Nidhiki05 23:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, that is well put. I generally really hate questioning adminstrators...they aren't paid to do what they do and most of them do just fine...I imagine even the three involved in this affair are probably fine overall. The issue I have is that the parameters make it difficult for the administrators to dwelve deeper into the situation so that they may make a more impartial assessment....3 edits possibly construed as problematic enough to warrant an indefinite topic ban vs. the (I'm probably underestimating) 5000 edits to the same topic area that no one else found an issue with. There isn't much justice sometimes, not here or in real ife...about all Tom can hope for now should he even want to edit 9/11 pages again is that the one administrator Tim, will discuss the situation with WGFinley...--MONGO 23:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, its sad. The ban is entire inappropriate as an indef, but at least Tom is fighting it now. Toa Nidhiki05 23:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It was overkill...--MONGO 23:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Odd, but this is an impressive first edit.--MONGO 00:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

And how long it stayed dormant until then. . --DHeyward (talk) 05:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Giovanni33